• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Liberal Party of Canada Leadership

Status
Not open for further replies.
E.R. Campbell said:
I think PM Harper has both his party and our our country on the right course: towards a moderate, centrist but less intrusive national government. A lot of CPC members disagree; they want to be US Republicans; if they capture the CPC then Canadian voters will do to us, the Conservatives, what Americans did to the GOP: hand us our asses on election day.
I'm with you 100% in that I believe PM Harper is the best man for the job, however, the great unwashed multitude are making more noise everyday. 

This caterwauling may just get more folks out to vote in 15 than ever before and if they believe correctly or not that we are heading to become like the GOP in direction and thrust they will hand us our asses that day.  I do believe that whomever wins, they won't have a majority to play with.
 
A pretty devastating look at the Young Dauphin and what he brings(?) to the LPC and Canadian politics. Sadly, despite all this, the average "low information" voter will neither know nor care anything about the policy positions, moral compass or "vision" of the leadership candidates or eventual winner (and when you really get down to it, could they name any of these factors about Steven Harper, Thomas Mucair or even Elizabeth May?):

http://abearsrant.com/2012/11/justin-trudeau-the-peter-pan-of-canadian-politics.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ABearsRant+%28A+Bear%27s+Rant%29

Justin Trudeau – The Peter Pan of Canadian Politics
Published November 28, 2012
“All children, except one, grow up.”

“Oh, the cleverness of me!”

― J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan

A new star has burst on the horizon, a star that has emerged from Never Never Land to lead us all to a magic place where all our dreams will come true and none of us will ever grow old.  His name is Justin Trudeau and he is the Peter Pan of Canadian politics.

Ah, if only he could fly.

Mr. Trudeau, who is 42, has declared that nobody over the age of 40 will be allowed to be part of his team. Considering that approximately 63% of the electorate is actually over 40, it would appear that Mr. Trudeau’s vision for a united Canada does not include a majority of Canadians.

But not to worry, he has a wonderful view of the world that remains unobscured by the pixie dust sprinkled about by Tinkerbelle or even simple reality.

Last spring, when Immigration Minister Jason Kenney unveiled a new handbook on Canadian values for immigrants, Justin Trudeau, objected to the government’s use of the word barbaric to describe honour killings.

After back peddling himself into a brick wall, Mr. Trudeau conceded that honour killings are indeed morally reprehensible and apologized for his comments.”

-  Supriya Dwivedi – Huffington Post

Mr. Trudeau, who believes himself to be a strong supporter of women’s rights, felt that the word barbaric was too pejorative and sent the wrong message to newcomers to Canada. Always culturally sensitive, Mr. Trudeau was concerned that using such language to describe what most Canadians consider to be – well – barbaric, might hurt the feelings of the potential murderers of women whose only crime was that they had offended the somewhat perverse sense of honour of some of the men in their lives.

I don’t mean to be critical because if nothing else, Mr. Trudeau is consistent and brings that same fairy tale understanding to most issues he comments on these days.

In an interview, in French in Quebec, Mr. Trudeau stated his somewhat ambiguous position of the possible separation of Quebec from Canada. He is opposed to it unless, of course…..

“I’ve always said that if the time comes when I believe that Canada becomes truly the Canada of Stephen Harper – we turn against abortion, against gay marriage, and return to the past in a myriad of other different ways – perhaps I would muse about wanting to make Quebec a country.”

This son of a Canadian Prime Minister who, love him or hate him, was violently opposed to special status to Quebec let alone the separation of it from Canada, actually set out conditions in which he might consider supporting Quebec breaking away from Canada.

In his subsequent apology and clarification, Mr. Trudeau batted those now famous, dreamy eyes and stated that the remarks had been taken out of context. He blamed his remarks on Stephen Harper and the Conservative government’s anti-Canadian values. Mr. Trudeau is convinced that Canada’s Prime Minister is Captain Hook incarnate and is determined to save us from his sound management of the Canadian economy and pragmatic approach to governing.

“Freedom from fear, freedom from crime, freedom to love who you want and to not be judged for it [i.e., same-sex marriage], freedom to do what you want with your body [i.e., abortion]. These freedoms are the very things that Stephen Harper and his government are trying to take away!”

Sometimes I wonder if politicians like Mr. Trudeau actually pay attention to what is happening around them or if they just form an opinion and then drool over it for the rest of their lives because they are too busy to notice what is actually happening in the real world.

Unlike previous Liberal governments, this Conservative government has taken a tough-on-crime stance to punish criminals and protect potential victims. It has moved to do away with some of the absurd slap-on-the-wrist policies of former Liberal administrations and committed to a more consistent application of criminal law across the country. Justin Trudeau, fixated on his belief in Never-Never Land, opposed most of what was proposed along with his fellow Liberals who seemed less concerned with reducing crime, and the fear it brings to a society, than they were with opposing the government.

It was this same Conservative government that, far from being a threat to same-sex marriage, actually fixed the convoluted and broken law the Liberals legislated so that same-sex couples both from Canada and abroad, could more easily marry and divorce. Mr. Trudeau considers that a denial of the freedom to love who you want.

Perhaps, if Mr. Trudeau had spent less time flitting about in Never Never Land and more time in the real world, he might have been aware that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has emphatically stated that he will not open the abortion debate and he has kept his word. Far from being Captain Hook, the Prime Minister has actually managed to make Canada the envy of the world for its prudent economic policies and stable governance.

The sad truth, which has often escaped Justin Trudeau, is that it was previous Liberal governments that over-regulated Canadians and which undermined our economies and our safety and security; not the current Conservative government.

Nonetheless, Mr. Trudeau remains steadfastly committed to his values and his view of Canada as evidenced by his inability to refrain from calling Environment Minister Peter Kent “a piece of crap” in the House of Commons; definitely un-Peter Pan-like language if you ask me.

Cue another Trudeau apology and another attempt to blame the Conservatives for the words that came forth from his mouth without benefit of having traveled through his brain first.

Mr. Trudeau reminds me of a teenager who acknowledges that he might have done something inappropriate but always has an excuse that usually passes some, if not all, of the blame along to someone or something else. Typically, even though the words were his own, he usually blames them on being taken out of context or having been forced upon him by the actions of others. Tnankfully, he is becoming quite adept at almost apologizing.

And that brought us to last week, when comments Mr. Trudeau made  in a 2010 radio interview,  emerged.

“Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn’t work.”

Actually, Pete –I mean Justin – it works quite well. Most of Canada is doing just fine thank you. Ontario and Quebeca are not doing so well because of the corrupt mismanagement by successive Liberal governments. Not content with blaming Alberta for the economic and political mess in central Canada, particularly in Quebec, Mr. Trudeau went on to state:

“Why do millions of Quebeckers not see themselves in this government? […] Because they do not like – they do not see – the Canada that we build over decades reflected – not in the policies of this government – but in the values that this government is putting forward.”

Apparently those same Quebecers didn’t see themselves in the values of Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals either. They were highly offended by the actual lack of values that led to Adscam which the Liberals conducted in their province. Apparently the good people of Quebec don’t share quite the same morality as the Liberal Party of Canada.

But then, not many of us do, regardless of political affiliation.

They overwhelmingly rejected Liberal candidates in the last federal election, choosing New Democrats instead. Mr. Trudeau confused ‘buying’ support in Quebec with taxpayer money for sharing the same values.

The irony of his statement in light of the Liberal collapse in the province appears to be lost on Mr. Trudeau who seems to believe that he and Tinkerbelle can save Canada from Captain Hook and the pirates if we all just believe in him and the yet to be defined Liberal values.

What seems to be a little hazy, to be honest, is just exactly what is it that Justin Trudeau wants everyone to believe.

I don’t believe it is the Conservative government that is out of touch with Canadian values, I believe Mr. Trudeau is out of touch with reality. His view of what is happening in Canada is based on shallow and superficial analysis that only someone who lacks real experience or anything even beginning to approach critical thought can bring to an issue.

His understanding of the economic mess in Quebec and Ontario doesn’t even measure up to being superficial. Blaming Alberta or even the federal government for the failed policies of successive provincial Liberal Governments is like blaming your doctor for the cold you caught because you didn’t dress properly for the winter weather.

The simple reality is that if politicians like Justin Trudeau would stop flying about and getting in the way, Alberta’s energy sector would drive prosperity across Canada, creating more than 900,000 new jobs in the process, many of which will be in central Canada.

But as most of us know from having read the book, reality was never Peter Pan’s strongest suit.

Justin Trudeau’s vision of unity for the country only works well if you’re under forty, don’t live in Alberta and believe you can fly if you just hold Peter’s hand and close your eyes. There is little room for diversity in the Trudeau vision of this country and apparently not much room for experience, maturity or by being governed by anyone who isn’t from Quebec either.

Like Peter Pan (and Justin Bieber) Justin Trudeau has an engaging smile, lots of superficial charisma and absolutely divine hair. Apparently that is pretty much all the Liberal Party is looking for in a leader these days but as desperate as they are to reclaim power, it is still somewhat of a surprise that they would put so much hope on Peter Pan.

But, it is what it is and because so many still prefer to cling to fairy tales rather than deal with reality, many will rush to join the personality cult and I suspect we’ll soon be changing the name of the country from Canada to Never Never Land which means that. . . coming soon to a Parliament near you. . .


Read more at http://abearsrant.com/2012/11/justin-trudeau-the-peter-pan-of-canadian-politics.html#wR7p9dR0qhRVbGk0.99

Edit to add a twofer. It seems when the rubber hits the road, the Young Dauphin actually has the reverse Midas touch i.e. everything he touches turns into....:

http://diogenesborealis.blogspot.ca/2012/11/justin-trudeaus-kiss-of-death.html

Justin Trudeau's kiss of death

I'm starting a new meme - the "Justin Trudeau effect". It refers to the disastrous effect that a visit or endorsement from Justin Trudeau has on a Liberal candidate's election prospects. The latest victim: Calgary Centre Liberal candidate Harvey Locke, whose campaign received a visit from Young Justin last week. Trudeau's visit helped Locke snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at the hands of Conservative Joan Crockatt in yesterday's federal byelection.

If I were a Liberal running for office, I'd think twice before asking for Young Justin's help. In 2006, he endorsed Gerard Kennedy at the Liberal leadership convention. Kennedy lost to Stephane Dion.

Trudeau travelled to Halifax in 2009 to campaign for provincial Liberal leader Stephen McNeil who was running for the premiership of Nova Scotia. McNeil lost to the NDP's Darrell Dexter.

In 2010, Trudeau breezed in to Toronto for a double whammy, campaigning for Liberal Tony Genco who was running in Vaughan in the federal election, and for George Smitherman who was running for Mayor of Toronto.  Genco lost to Conservative Julian Fantino and Smitherman went down to defeat at the hands of Rob Ford.

Trudeau is an empty shell whose much-lauded magic touch with the electorate has a record of fizzling when it really counts. Now that he's running for the leadership of the federal Liberals, he has once again trotted out his alleged charisma for the faithful, promising to lead them out of the wilderness into the Promised Land. Good luck with that.
 
The problem, Thucydides, is that the Canadian Conservative blogosphere/Twitterverse is no more representative of Canadian voters than the US conservative equivalent is of US voters. If we rely upon the Canadian Conservative blogosphere/Twitterverse to 'inform' political opinon then we, like the US GOP, will have our arses handed to us by the Liberals Party of Canada.

We, Conservatives, need to let M. Garneau and Ms Hall Findlay highlight the fact, and it is a fact, that Justin Trudeau is a vacuous dilettante, in other words: an upper class twit. Then, assuming he wins the Liberal leadership despite all that, we need combined, albeit uncoordinated attacks from both the left (NDP) and right (CPC). We need the mainstream media - the infotainment industry, CBC, CTV, Global, etc - to comprehend, despite their innate prejudices, that M. Trudeau is a weakling, and to 'inform' Canadians of that fact.

 
What nobody seems to have addressed so far is the potential impact all those $10 memberships might have. If I recall, not only are these folks in a position to cast a vote, so are all the "free" supporters. The glitter effect may be underestimated.


Then again as Sun Tsu said "never interrupt your enemy when he's in the midst of making a mistake."
 
Sadly, the Legacy Media already seems to have staked out the position that the Young Dauphin is the greatest thing since sliced Wonder Bread (TM).

What I am counting on is his inability to respond to attacks from the Left or Right and an ever incresing series of gaffes which even the media will not be able to ignore (especially when caught live). His previous record suggests that is exactly what will happen. The other factor is the closed bubble he is constructing for himself (i.e. a team  of advisors "under 40" and presumably heavy on the Quebecois elements). They will have a hard time reaching out to the majority of over 40 voters who live outside of the Quebec or the major metropolitan areas since they will have no world view to connect with.
 
Maybe he knows all this and is setting things up so that he replaces Jean Charest....
 
We are at war with EastAsia. We have always been at war with EastAsia. Justin Trudeau's views today on the gun registry. (Notice the article carefully fails to mention that he voted to keep the Long gun registry, and to my knowledge has never before made any positive statements regarding the issue) The article sidebar has a list of current positions on other policy items:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/12/01/pol-the-house-justin-trudeau-long-gun-registry.html

Trudeau calls long-gun registry 'a failure'

Having a firearm is an 'important facet of Canadian identity,' Liberal leadership hopeful says
By Susana Mas, CBC News Posted: Dec 1, 2012 3:15 PM ET Last Updated: Dec 1, 2012 7:49 PM ET Read 566 comments566
Liberal leadership candidate Justin Trudeau said the long gun registry was a failure, during a campaign stop in the Conservative riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on Friday. (Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press)

"The long-gun registry, as it was, was a failure and I'm not going to resuscitate that," Trudeau said while visiting the DART Aerospace plant in Hawkesbury.

"We will continue to look at ways of keeping our cities safe and making sure that we do address the concerns around domestic violence that happen right across the country, in rural as well as urban areas in which, unfortunately, guns do play a role.

"But there are better ways of keeping us safe than that registry which is, has been removed," Trudeau said.

The Liberal leadership hopeful made the comments after he was asked for his view on the now-defunct long-gun registry.

"I grew up with long guns, rifles and shotguns," explained the son of former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

"Yes, the RCMP guarding me had handguns and I got to play with them every now and then," said Trudeau, quickly adding that the RCMP was "very responsible" around him and his siblings.

Trudeau went on to say, "I was raised with an appreciation and an understanding of how important in rural areas and right across the country gun ownership is as a part of the culture of Canada. I do not feel that there's any huge contradiction between keeping our cities safe from gun violence and gangs, and allowing this important facet of Canadian identity which is having a gun."

Trudeau, who worked as a high school teacher before jumping into politics, said he once took a school group hiking across Greenland armed with a gun.

"It was one of the only times that I ever taught with a loaded .30-06 slung over my shoulder. You don't usually think of teaching with a heavy-duty rifle on your shoulder, but when you're in polar bear country, you have to be aware of that."

Trudeau blamed not only the Conservatives but also previous governments for polarizing the gun debate.

"We have a government, or successive governments, that have managed to polarize the conversations around gun ownership to create games in electoral ways — when you don't have to have a conflict," the MP from Quebec said.

"There is no concept, no idea that gun ownership is ever going to be under attack for law-abiding hunters and farmers across this country. But we need to keep the cities safe. And I don't see that that's an unsolvable solution," Trudeau said.

Quebec in long-gun registry battle
The federal long-gun registry was first created by the Liberal Party in 1995, in the wake of the 1989 massacre at Montreal's École Polytechnique, where a gunman shot and killed 14 women, mostly engineering students.

The "$2-billion boondoggle" registry was loathed by much of rural Canada and opposed by the Conservatives, who after several attempts finally abolished it in April after passing Bill C-19, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, in a final vote of 159-130. Trudeau voted against the abolition of the federal long-gun registry.

Where Justin Trudeau stands

On a carbon tax versus a cap-and-trade scheme, Trudeau said, "I don't know."

On raising the GST: "No."

On smoking pot, Trudeau said, "Yes, I have. I'm not particularly fond of it, but I have."

On decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana, Trudeau said, "yes," and added that "it's an automatic next step to look at taxing and regulation."

On legalizing, decriminalizing or deregulating acts associated with prostitution: "I don't know yet."

On the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project, Trudeau said he's not opposed to pipelines in general, just this particular one, citing environmental concerns. "It's the wrong one."

On China's growing investment in Canada's natural resources: Trudeau said that he's in favour of more trade with China and that's it's important to "engage" with the Chinese and not be "dictating at them." He called Prime Minister Stephen Harper's early stance with China "immature."

On Old Age Security, Trudeau said he would reverse the federal government's decision to raise the age of eligibility from 65 to 67.


The Quebec government went to court to preserve its share of long-gun data and in September, a Quebec Superior Court judge sided with the province.

While the federal government has destroyed millions of records of registered long guns, it is currently appealing the Quebec court ruling blocking it from destroying the data from Quebec's portion of the federal long-gun registry.

No stranger to public scrutiny, Trudeau said his biggest challenge is getting Canadians to know what he does and doesn't stand for.

In an exclusive in-depth interview airing on CBC Radio's The House — his first national English broadcast interview since entering the Liberal leadership race — Trudeau told host Evan Solomon "my biggest challenge is getting people to know everything that I am and everything that I'm not."

"I'm someone who is driven by my values, my sense of wanting to contribute to a build better country and people come at me with certain pre-conceptions," Trudeau said.

Liberals, Trudeau and Alberta
When asked what part of his father's legacy was a liability to him now, Trudeau took a deep breath before answering and said "not a lot," adding "but I would say the consequences of the National Energy Program."

"The fact that what was a well-intentioned proposal that was counting on the fact that oil prices were going to rise, when in fact they fell and hurt Alberta, and hurt one region of the country greatly, left a lasting legacy that I continue to fight to this day."

Trudeau made Calgary his first campaign stop after lauching his leadership bid in Montreal.

"When I spend an awful lot of time out west, I spent a lot of time talking with Albertans and building bridges with the new progressive, exciting Alberta — and all someone has to do is bring up a misstatement from the past and divisive politics wins again. And that's something that I'm going to work very, very hard through my actions, not just through my words, to demonstrate that I'm beyond [that]," Trudeau said.

It was the young Trudeau's own comments about Albertans, which he made during a 2010 interview, that recently re-surfaced and touched off a political firestorm days before a byelection in Calgary.

While Trudeau conceded he "may have hindered a little bit" his party's chances in the Nov. 26 Calgary Centre byelection, he rejected the suggestion his 2010 comments are indicative of the "real" Justin Trudeau today.

"I think you get to know someone over time by the sum of what they say, what they talk about, what they propose, how they act. And I think voters are looking for real people — not spun, sound-bited, massively controlled politicians — that they can get a sense of."

Trudeau offered an apology for saying that Canada wasn't doing well because "it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda," but continued to argue his comments were being misinterpreted and that they were directed at the government of Stephen Harper and not Albertans in general.

Coalition and merger talks
When asked about comments he made in 2008 praising the Bloc Québécois for supporting a Liberal-NDP coalition, Trudeau told Solomon "a moment of crisis" required the opposition parties to set their differences aside.

"In any situation I will work with all other parties who share my interests and my values, and sometimes it will be the Conservatives on certain initiatives, other times it might be the NDP, other times it might be the Greens or the Bloc. I'm not so ideological that I consider someone who is elected to the House of Commons is somehow illegitimate to work with," said Trudeau.

Asked if he would ever enter into a coalition with the Bloc, Trudeau said he could not foresee a situation where one would be required given that the separatist Quebec party was decimated in the last federal election.

"I don't think we'd ever come to the point of a coalition being necessary. I am running to win for the leadership of the Liberal Party and to win the prime ministership of the country. I do not think we're ever going to have to build any sort of coalition."

Trudeau closed the door to the idea of a merger with the Opposition New Democrats, saying, "I'm alway open to talking to anyone about proposals that'll make Parliament work better, but I am opposed to the idea of a merger."
 
>On the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project, Trudeau said he's not opposed to pipelines in general, just this particular one, citing environmental concerns. "It's the wrong one."

OK, bright boy.  Which route out of Alberta do you envision that doesn't cross watersheds and water tables?  Sailboat fuel for brains, that one.
 
The ABC, Anybody But a Conservative, idea will not go away, as demonstrated by this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from iPolitics:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/03/joyce-murray-has-a-really-important-idea/
Joyce Murray has a really important idea

By Paul Adams

Dec 3, 2012

Joyce Murray has barely registered on the media radar screen tracking the federal Liberal leadership race.

The radar has Justin Trudeau as an enormous, multi-coloured blob in the centre of the screen, with Marc Garneau and Martha Hall Findlay as blips, and the rest of the candidates as tiny, indistinguishable flecks that could easily be mistaken for interference.

But Joyce Murray, the Vancouver MP who was first elected to parliament as a Liberal in 2008, has a very important idea. She wants to allow Liberal riding associations to cooperate with like-minded parties at the local level in choosing a joint candidate.

“There are some ridings where the vast majority of voters would like to have a progressive voice,” Murray said as she kicked off her campaign. “So, if a riding is willing to have a run-off so that the progressive voice has a chance of becoming elected, then that’s something that I think is a good idea.”

This idea was given new piquancy, of course, by the Calgary Centre byelection last Monday in which a weak Conservative candidate won with 37 per cent of the vote, while the Liberals took 33 per cent and the Greens 26 per cent. It was a campaign that featured as much vituperation among the opposition parties as it did between the Conservative and her opponents.

You can guarantee that most if not all of the other Liberal leadership candidates will stridently denounce Murray’s proposal as a betrayal, tantamount to party treason, even though polls suggest that nearly two-thirds of ordinary Liberal voters favour an outright merger of the opposition parties — a much more radical idea than Murray is contemplating.

This is exactly what happened with Nathan Cullen in the NDP leadership race earlier this year when he made a similar proposal, and the reason is simple. The party activists who play the most important part in organizing and voting in leadership races are much more partisan — much more attached personally and emotionally to their party’s traditions — than the voters are.

As I’ve argued in my recent book, Power Trap, the Liberals are largely fishing in the same pool of voters with the NDP and the Greens, while the Conservatives have their own, somewhat smaller pond all to themselves as a result of their party merger of 2003. The consequence is that under our first-past-the-post electoral system we have a majority Conservative government elected with just less than 40 per cent of the vote.

That majority government is opposed to action on climate change and indifferent to the growing inequality in our society and the hollowing out of the middle class. This parliamentary majority exists even though most Canadians voted for either the NDP, the Liberals or the Greens — parties which have generally similar, though not identical, views on these fundamental issues.

Early in the New Year, the pollster Darrell Bricker and the columnist John Ibbitson will be coming out with their own book based on polling data which underline this basic division of the electorate. You can get a foretaste of this argument in a fascinating piece in Policy Options by Bricker and his colleague at the polling company Ipsos Reid, Keren Gottfried, based on a truly massive poll taken at the time of the last election. Another pollster, Frank Graves, has made some similar points here based on more recent data.

It is perfectly understandable that many of the party faithful, who have done the hard work of party organization year after year, knocking on doors at election time, taking vacations to attend party conventions, and boring their politically disengaged friends with their partisan enthusiasm, would be reluctant to cooperate, much less merge, with those they’ve been competing against all their lives.

But unlike Britain — where the party system has been by-and-large stable since the emergence of Labour a century ago — or the United States, where the current two-party system has been in place since the Civil War, parties in Canada have been and likely will continue to be much more fluid.

In Canada, parties sprout — the Progressives, the CCF, Social Credit, Reform, the Bloc Québécois. They transmute from earlier forms — the NDP, the Canadian Alliance. They explode — the Progressive Conservatives. They sometimes grow and they sometimes shrink — the Liberals. Sometimes they even merge — as the remnants of the Progressive Conservatives did with the Canadian Alliance to produce the only really successful federal party of the 21st century, the Harper Conservatives.

The CA and the PCs united because they were fishing in the same pond of voters, with the consequence that neither could challenge for government. When they united, the merged party actually drew fewer votes than they had as separate parties — but they won more seats, and they were on the road to more than a decade in power. This was, it has to be said, a painful experience for some of those faithful to the old parties, particularly among the PCs. But the alternative was to continue wandering in the desert.

For Joyce Murray, the experience of the Cullen campaign for the NDP leadership is instructive. Cullen’s advocacy of joint nomination of candidates was met at first with derision. Many commentators, inside the party and out, felt it hobbled his candidacy. But after a while, the idea — combined with his winning personality, it has to be said — began to attract attention and win wider appeal, some of it organized by outside groups such as Leadnow. Some people who had been on the sidelines joined the party to support Cullen and his idea. He went from being a marginal candidate to running a strong third, and in doing so he opened the door to a discussion of the idea.

In the case of the Liberals, they have decided to allow non-members of the party — so-called “supporters” — to vote, and these could be a significant constituency for Joyce Murray and her idea.

There’s no doubt Murray is a long shot to win the leadership. And I understand that it is likely that the winner will denounce the idea of inter-party cooperation during the leadership campaign, just as Thomas Mulcair did with the NDP.

But once the Liberal leadership is over, all the opposition parties will be staring a stark reality in the face. None of them is likely to win a majority in the next election unless they cooperate or merge. If one is lucky enough to win a minority, it will depend on other like-minded parties to pass its legislation and stay in power. Sooner or later, in other words, the current opposition parties likely will be driven to cooperate.

There will be a window after the Liberal leadership, whoever is elected, when it will be possible to explore possibilities like the one that Cullen and now Murray have proposed. It is worth remembering that the leaders of both the PCs and the Canadian Alliance rejected the idea of party merger when they were leadership candidates. But they changed their minds and persuaded their parties otherwise once they were elected. They did so because it made political sense.

Of course, there is another possibility for the Liberals, the NDP and the Greens, perhaps the most probable of all: that they will once again compete with one another in the 2015 election, and in doing so allow the Conservatives to triumph as they have in 2006, 2008 and 2011 against a divided opposition. At that point, the impulse for cooperation likely will be irresistible, but too late to prevent yet another Conservative government advancing policies they all oppose.

Follow Paul Adams on Twitter: @padams29


Here's why ABC is a good idea: there is only a large handful of ridings in which the CPC candidate secured 50% of the vote ~ not enough to win even a minority against a unified opposition. If the aim is to prevent another Conservative government, in other words if your entire electoral objective is negative, then Ms Murray's idea is a good one.

(But it is not clear, from a very cursory glance at the data linked above, that the Liberals would benefit very much from a properly organized ABC campaign. We might well end up with an NDP minority government, a CPC opposition and the Liberals and Greens (who finished second in a few ridings) fighting it out for last place.)

Here's why it is a dumb idea: Paul Adams says that Ms Murray "wants to allow Liberal riding associations to cooperate with like-minded parties at the local level in choosing a joint candidate." That's a HUGE problem because there are no like minded parties. The Liberals and the NDP and the Greens are NOT alike; if they were, as the CA and PCs were in the 1990s, then they would have united already. In other words Ms Murray's idea rests on a false premise.

I really hope that she keeps pushing this and I hope that the anti-Conservative media faction keeps supporting her because it is good news for the Conservatives. It will prompt the Liberal left wing to look more favourably on the NDP which will, in turn, cause the Manley Liberals to look more favourably on the CPC and leave the real Liberals looking for another saviour.

Paul Adams is right, albeit for the wrong reasons, in his last sentence. The "progressives" cannot unite because they are not FOR the same things; disliking Stephen Harper is not a sufficiently firm base upon which to build a political movement. But ABC is a nice wet dream for many Canadians.

 
I can not see Ms Coyne, Ms Hall Finley, Mr Garneau or even JT embracing such a foolish plan. The goal of the Liberal party is to win a future election. This plan would not see them do that.
 
Another smokescreen generated by the NDP supporters who wish to absorb the LPC.

The LPC supporters who get behind this sort of idea are those who want to win without the effort of developing a useful platform.

Above it all lie the "important" issues of our time, of which the importance is assumed to fit preconceptions, not proven.
 
Whatever you think of the Young Dauphin, this article lays out the pitfalls for anyone who becomes leader of the LPC. Unless there is a purge of the palace guard, they will indeed be hamstrung by the desire to "be bold and inventive, just as long as they’re not too bold or too inventive". Of course the Young Dauphin is perfect in one regard; having no base of accomplishments to stand on, and very limited experience in the "real" world he will be quite easy for the powers that be to mold and shape. Martha Hall-Findley and Marc Garneau would be harder nuts to crack in this regard.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/04/kelly-mcparland-justin-trudeau-learns-that-liberals-want-new-ideas-just-like-the-old-ones/

Kelly McParland: Justin Trudeau learns that Liberals want new ideas just like the old ones

Kelly McParland | Dec 4, 2012 11:47 AM ET | Last Updated: Dec 4, 2012 12:02 PM ET
More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland

If Stephen Harper’s Conservatives were quietly pleased when Justin Trudeau chose to enter the Liberal leadership race, they must be downright gleeful today.

Trudeau always carried great potential as a gift to the government. A young, inexperienced MP, with little track record in politics or anything else, but imbued with the Trudeau sense of confidence and plenty of Trudeau acolytes ready to buttress his ambitions. The launch of his campaign was carried on live TV, setting the bar high from the get-go, ensuring that anything less than a regal march to a leadership coronation would be viewed as a letdown. Trudeau’s campaign had to be pretty much flawless to succeed. Martha Hall Findlay and Marc Garneau might get away with a slip here or there, in some local Legion Hall where no one was watching too closely, but not Justin. Not only is every word parsed for implications, but opinions he delivered long before he entered the race are  being re-evaluated under newer contexts.

There were bound to be stumbles, and they were bound to be magnified. But Trudeau has delivered more than the Tories could have hoped, and perhaps earlier than they expected. He’d barely finished explaining what he really meant when he suggested Albertans were a bunch of  no-account losers who shouldn’t be allowed within sniffing distance of power, when he was forced to explain what he really meant when he said the gun registry — one of the proudest achievements of recent Liberalism — was “a failure” that he wouldn’t resuscitate as prime minister.

There is some justice to his claim that he’d been misunderstood, that his criticism of the registry was over its effect, not its aims. It did, indeed, divide Canadians, and it did cost the Liberals much support in rural areas and in the West (though western support has long been minimal anyway). He didn’t say it was a bad idea that never should have been tried, or that it was a waste of time that failed to prevent gun crimes (though it largely was).  What he said was true: “It ended up dividing Canadians more than it actually protected Canadians”, and that public support eventually eroded to the point that it could be shut down by the Conservatives.

The damage has been considerable nonetheless. He  now has his own party on his back. Martin Cauchon, a former MP and potential leadership rival, took issue with Trudeau’s badmouthing of a policy of which many Liberals remain proud.  “A candidate running should have the backbone to respect and stand for the principles that we have always stood for,” he said. “I do hope that the starting point for our party will be to respect key values and key principles and, to me, the gun registry is an important one … I can’t imagine having one single candidate in our race saying the gun registry — what was the term that he used? — a failure.”

At the same time, Martha Hall Findlay was decrying Trudeau’s remarks about Alberta, which likely contributed to the loss of a close by-election race in Calgary. “Whether I’m an Albertan or I’m Ontarian, whether I’m from anywhere in this country, those comments do not reflect me, they don’t reflect my views of this country,” she said.

In both cases, the damage isn’t just that Trudeau took stances that other Liberals disagree with. Parties should have disagreements, it’s an excellent antidote to political sclerosis. Much worse was the reaction: i.e. that Justin and his camp had to scramble to reframe his words, to soften the impact, to assure everyone he didn’t mean it, that he was still safely within the confines of accepted Liberal thought. By the afternoon, just as he had with his Alberta remarks, Trudeau was denying he’d said what everyone thought he’d said. The gun registry was a failure, he explained, because it had failed. It no longer existed, therefore it must be a failure. If it was a success, it would still exist. Except in Quebec, where it wasn’t divisive, therefore it wasn’t a failure. See?

It didn’t make a lot of sense, and Liberals like Cauchon weren’t buying. If the Tories shut down the healthcare system, would that make it a failure too? The official, acceptable, Liberal view is that the registry was a magnificent initiative, ruined by a pack of trigger-happy Conservative neanderthals.

If you think you’ve seen this before, it’s because you have. Michael Ignatieff, like Trudeau, framed his campaign as an opportunity to revivify the party, explore new ideas, question old assumptions and appeal to a new generation of supporters. But when Ignatieff strayed mildly outside Liberal orthodoxy, the blowback was so fierce he retreated into standard Liberalism, allowing the party fathers to smother any notion of bold ideas under a blanket of standard Liberal mumbo jumbo. After a year or two he was just another wishy-washy Liberal trying to rally support behind tired ideas voters had already rejected. Now Trudeau is being pressured into the same corner. Its fine with party elders for him to be bold and inventive, just as long as they’re not too bold or too inventive. What they would really like is a clean new face on tired old ideas, and Justin fits that mold as long as he flashes his endearing smile, gets the faithful feeling good about themselves, and doesn’t threaten any of the dwindling band of committed allies.

Trudeau now has to watch himself. He’s already given Albertans reason to be wary of the sudden Liberal interest in their welfare.  He’s similarly given rural voters reason to believe he’s less than sincere in claiming sympathy with their views. He’s handed the Tories rich material to accuse him of saying anything an audience wants to hear, of taking one position in Quebec, another in Ontario and a third in the West.  If he has any hopes of staying in the race, he’ll have to be cautious, and watch what he says. He’ll have to avoid being divisive, and further aggravating fellow Liberals.  He’ll have to mince words, sidestep controversy, learn to talk without saying anything. He’ll have to hint at change without really getting into specifics. He’ll have to be like other Liberals. Which is exactly what did in Ignatieff.

National Post
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The ABC, Anybody But a Conservative, idea will not go away, as demonstrated by this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from iPolitics:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/03/joyce-murray-has-a-really-important-idea/

Here's why ABC is a good idea: there is only a large handful of ridings in which the CPC candidate secured 50% of the vote ~ not enough to win even a minority against a unified opposition. If the aim is to prevent another Conservative government, in other words if your entire electoral objective is negative, then Ms Murray's idea is a good one.

(But it is not clear, from a very cursory glance at the data linked above, that the Liberals would benefit very much from a properly organized ABC campaign. We might well end up with an NDP minority government, a CPC opposition and the Liberals and Greens (who finished second in a few ridings) fighting it out for last place.)

Here's why it is a dumb idea: Paul Adams says that Ms Murray "wants to allow Liberal riding associations to cooperate with like-minded parties at the local level in choosing a joint candidate." That's a HUGE problem because there are no like minded parties. The Liberals and the NDP and the Greens are NOT alike; if they were, as the CA and PCs were in the 1990s, then they would have united already. In other words Ms Murray's idea rests on a false premise.

I really hope that she keeps pushing this and I hope that the anti-Conservative media faction keeps supporting her because it is good news for the Conservatives. It will prompt the Liberal left wing to look more favourably on the NDP which will, in turn, cause the Manley Liberals to look more favourably on the CPC and leave the real Liberals looking for another saviour.

Paul Adams is right, albeit for the wrong reasons, in his last sentence. The "progressives" cannot unite because they are not FOR the same things; disliking Stephen Harper is not a sufficiently firm base upon which to build a political movement. But ABC is a nice wet dream for many Canadians.


Jamey Heath, formerly Jack Layton's communications director and a pretty sharp political thinker disagrees with me in this thoight provoking article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from iPolitics:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/04/uniting-the-centre-left-answering-the-skeptics/
Uniting the centre-left: answering the skeptics

By Jamey Heath

Dec 4, 2012

In a recent column, iPolitics writer Zach Paikin says that because Tom Mulcair is NDP leader, the issue of NDP-Liberal cooperation or merger is “a waste of time.” He also praises the patience of Stephen Harper — another leader once opposed to co-operation — and notes that NDP leadership contender Nathan Cullen “rode (co-operation) to an impressive third-place finish.”

This is tortured logic. If the last result determines the next one, there is no point contesting the next election because the Tories won the last one. But things can change and do. That Cullen did so well with a proposal many called “toxic” and a “millstone” should encourage, not prevent, further discussions.

Moreover, his campaign isn’t the only gauge of New Democrat thinking. Some people voted for him and didn’t like the idea; others liked the idea but voted for someone else. So it’s curious Paikin ignored a vote through which the NDP kept the door open — namely, the convention defeating a motion prohibiting an NDP-Liberal merger — just after becoming the official Opposition.

Similarly, using energy policy as an excuse for stating cooperation or merger can’t work is risible. Yes, opinions differ on the effect of a petro-dollar on other sectors of the economy. But there is more common ground on recognizing that climate change is real and needs to be addressed.

Focusing on differences, not similarities, is a mug’s game. They exist, of course, but they also exist within political parties.

Mr. Paikin also suggests that Liberals “need to reach both left and right in order to rebuild a winning coalition.” Apparently he believes it’s impossible to work with other centre-left parties, but not to bridge the left-right divide.

This naturally leads to the question of whether the Liberals truly are a party of the centre-left, as one may think by listening to their rhetoric, and if it’s true that “polarizing the electorate serves the interests of the NDP and the Conservatives.” If Liberals aren’t a party of the centre-left, why do they believe in a role for government? This is the true litmus test of where a party sits, and what allows a progressive majority to win.

On the second question — am I imagining things, or did Liberals not polarize, too? From free trade to Stockwell Day and the dinosaurs to successive campaigns urging Canadians to “choose their Canada” and stop “soldiers with guns” from invading our cities, examples abound of polarizing Liberal campaigns. That the larger not-Conservative party has changed doesn’t make politics more polarizing — it simply changes its main beneficiary.

Nor can Mr. Paikin credibly say the reason Liberals have fared badly since 2004 is left-leaning platforms. Jean Chrétien’s platform in 1993 was more leftish than Paul Martin’s in 2006. The former won, the latter didn’t. What should we make of that?

The truth is Liberals are weak because they have not won Quebec since 1980. This vulnerability was masked during the Chrétien years by huge majorities in Ontario — made possible by a divided right.

The question now — especially with Quebec voting for a federalist party nationally for the first time since 1988 — is what happens next. Mr. Paikin suggests Liberals can go solo by having better communications and organization. This is rich. Since Wayne Gretzky’s rookie season, the Liberal record versus a united right is three Tory majorities, two Tory minorities and one Liberal minority.

Amazingly, this doesn’t stop Mr. Paikin from fretting that a leftward shift would “do major damage to the Liberal brand.” Sorry? The natural governing party is in third place for the first time, and has to reach back to 1867 to find similarly awful results — but somehow the brand damage hasn’t happened yet?

For their part, many New Democrats believe it’s inevitable that because the party is in the top two, it will be forever. While it’s often true that once the party surpasses the Liberals (think Manitoba and Saskatchewan) the trend sticks, this is not always the case. Remember Bob Rae.

People could, I suppose, keep exaggerating differences. They can battle in a zero-sum war of attrition. And they can overlook the fact that a Bloc revival (the third wheel in the progressive conundrum isn’t the Greens, but nationalist Quebecers) would scupper any future coalition.

Or they could consider two things. First: since World War II, the NDP and Liberals have formally co-operated in four minority Parliaments, as well as in Ontario and Saskatchewan.

Second: if, after the next election, the two parties could control the House together, they would.

Given the parties have worked together before, and would again, the only question that needs answering is this: if they can work together after elections, why not before? With three years before the next election, people don’t need more straw men like the ones Mr. Paikin put up. They need a viable plan that lets shared values enjoy a shared way to govern.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

© 2012 iPolitics Inc.


I half agree with some things Mr. Heath says: leftish campaigns do work ~ Canadians' votes are, rather easily, bought with promises of "free" this or that. As he says, "Jean Chrétien’s platform in 1993 was more leftish than Paul Martin’s in 2006. The former won, the latter didn’t." He neglects to mention that while M. Chrétien did, indeed, "campaign from the left" he "governed from the right" and then won another victory in 1997 and a third in 2000. I also agree that a resurgent BQ or a federal NPQ (Nouveau Parti Québécois) of some sort will further complicate life on the political left.

That being agreed, I still think that the political DNA of the NDP is fundamentally different than that of the Liberal Party - the legacy of J.S. Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell, David Lewis, Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent is too different from the legacy of Mackenzie King, Louis St Laurent, Mike Pearson and Jean Chrétien (and, yes, I skipped Pierre Trudeau because he was, in fact, sui generis, a NDP members who migrated to the Liberals without, ever, adopting the Liberal's political philosophy. But maybe that's what (former Liberal) Tom Mulcair is doing to (or for) the NDP).

Anyway, there IS some credible political support for Ms Murray's idea.
 
Brian Gable, of the Globe and Mail, explains what's happening with M. Trudeau's campaign:

web-wededcar05co1.jpg

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/echo-point/article5865355/
 
Mr. Campbell, James Heath is no slouch when it comes to thoughtful, considered analysis.  I think the Liberals are really not in a very good position, because the NDP are shaping themselves to be a "transposed-ever-so-slightly-left" (but not too far left) version of Chretien's '93 team of "Socially-left-of-centre, Fiscally-hanging-around-the-centre" Liberals.  In '93, given the fracture of the PCs into their major components of ultra-cons (Reform) and left-over PCs (almost all P, a lot less C) the Liberals almost 100% took over the PC's agenda. You have to hand it to Chretien, he knew precisely what he was doing with his little red book, knowing that in pursuing much of the ex-PC's agenda as his own, he was going to break two of his three promises...keeping only one: "No new 'elicopters!"  The two broken promises (cancelling GST and NAFTA) were not so much broken promises as they were "borrowing" two of Mulroney's well-considered and very necessary (for Canada's future economical success) ideas. Chretien's then (with Martin stewarding the economics of it all) made his mark in Canadian political history by running the government in a manner not at all dissimilar to how Harper is running things today -clear mandate and tight control.

I think that the NDP (the smart, cunning ones anyway) looked at what Chretien's did in '93 and are doing that now...although they are doing so not to secure a majority, but to cinch their place as the opposition party for a very long time to come.  Heath's words are very interesting, and I believe anyone doing "PIPB" (political IPB) would note with keen interest where it seems that Heath (and no doubt Mulcair) see the future strength and positioning of the NDP:

Focusing on differences, not similarities, is a mug’s game. They exist, of course, but they also exist within political parties.

Mr. Paikin also suggests that Liberals “need to reach both left and right in order to rebuild a winning coalition.” Apparently he believes it’s impossible to work with other centre-left parties, but not to bridge the left-right divide.

Hmmm...differences within political parties...other center-left parties? 

The significance of those words by Heath should not be "unappreciated" either by followers of Canadian politics I general, or by Liberal "strategists" (if such people truly exist..."dogmatic tacticians encumbered by by arrogant belief that they are the true ruling party" is the best that I believe the Liberal brain trust has at the moment)

If the NDP strategists (and they do have some good people) are able to think of themselves as "center-left", pragmatically yet carefully explore "rightwards" towards the center, then the Liberal goose could very well be cooked.  It may not be popular with the NDP's farther left-leaning crowd, but Mulcair (supported by people like Heath) might very well be able to keep "Team Orange" together AND still in control of Stornaway.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
 
The Liberals are now changing the values they stood for 20 years ago replacing them with the Conservatives'. Fiscal responsibility which was a hallmark for the Conservatives from the time of Manning who was taken for granted by the voters, became the battlecry of the Chretien government during their last years. Repealing gun control put the young Trudeau in 'estoppel' such that when he 'got into it' it erased all the shortcomings the Conservatives have committed. Why would I vote for a political party who cannot orally accept their mistakes but acknowledge them by deeds? Even the non-Christians among the voters like the Hindus, the Sikhs, Moslems are now realizing through political education by the 'commissars of the Conservatives' they too would benefit if the Conservatives would be in power. There would be no conflict of interest between them and their daughters if the latter gets impregnated without the benefit of marriage. Abortions would hopefully be criminalized in the future. My 2 cent opinion and with due respect.
 
It seems to me that we really have four parties in Canada:

A hard left party --- a left of centre/centre left party --- a centre right/right of centre party --- a hard right party

In numbers the relationship is:

===        (Hard left ~ real socialists, nationalize the banks, etc)
====== (Soft left and centrists)
=====  (Soft right and centrists)
==          (Hard right ~ Focus on the Family, etc)

In my opinion we are a left of centre people who are governed by a centre right coalition because the Hard Right is too small and too weak to elect enough members to achieve official party status. But, while I think the right knows it must be united and the Hard Right knows it must surrender to the moderates or be forever consigned to the opposition benches, the board left does have options. The Hard Left knows that it can masquerade as a centrist party and win, at least, the opposition benches. The Liberals, who (mostly) consider themselves to be the left of centre/centre left party know that they can - by skimming a few voters from each of the Hard Left and the Centre Right groups - win the government. Thus, my suspicion is that it is harder to "unite the left" than it was for Harper and MacKay to "unite the right." Both Harper and MacKay knew they could not hope to govern alone ... neither Mulcair nor the next Liberal leaders knows that with anything like the same certainty.

 
Concur for the most part, Mr. Campbell  I think, however, that Mulcair is smart (and cunning) enough to pursue two courses of action for the NDP, both with reasonable chances of success:

1) Take the center-left away from the Liberals through adept use of the art of politics (his preferred COA), or

2) Propose a working relationship with the LPC, but leverage existing status as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to take the lead in the coalition, and use the Liberals' arrogance/reticence to refuse to cede lead to the NDP as justification to nullify any collaboration and revert to COA 1, above. (Mulcair's back-up plan)

Regards
G2G
 
The usefulness of the NDP depends on whether it is controlled by the faction that represents the 15-20% the NDP usually polls.  If that faction is in control, any appearance of a slightly left-of-centre platform is a Trojan horse.  (Campaign centre, govern left.)  The Liberals are ideologically still the proper left-of-centre party, but their brand is still tainted (especially in Quebec).
 
Greg Weston reports on the "Perils of Pierre's Son" in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the CBC News website:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/06/f-greg-weston-justin-trudeau-liberal-leadership-race.html
Justin Trudeau, long shot with a short resumé
Liberals could be 'rolling the dice for a miracle'

By Greg Weston, CBC News

Posted: Dec 7, 2012

The Conservative operatives sipping pints at a capital watering hole laughingly announce they are forming “Tories for Trudeau” to help ensure Justin wins the current federal Liberal leadership race.

Across the room, a Liberal organizer backing Trudeau’s bid for the Grit crown takes the Conservative gag in stride, but later concedes to me his party is “rolling the dice for a miracle.”

“I keep telling people in the party that Justin may be a long shot for winning the next election, but he’s the best shot we’ve got, so we need to get behind him.”

Ordinarily, being considered a long shot by your own supporters, and the best shot for the competition, is not exactly the ringing endorsement one might expect of a candidate for future prime minister.

Yet, Trudeau continues to draw packed Liberal gatherings across the country, and recent public opinion polls suggest that if an election were held today, ordinary Canadian voters are being wowed in sufficient numbers to put the Liberal Party back in contention for power.

But what exactly are Canadians being wowed by?

Pollsters say the apparent popularity of a Trudeau-led Liberal Party may reflect a growing fatigue with the Conservatives, and almost certainly points to unstable NDP support ready to shift camps with little coaxing.

There’s no question Trudeau’s iconic name, the handsome boyish looks, the often youthful flippancy — it all adds up to star-power and some refreshing relief from the daily growl of attack-dog politics under Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

But beyond all that, is Trudeau more than a pretty face?

Light on gravitas

The candidate to lead the Liberal Party and possibly the country has never managed anything larger than a school classroom, and his government experience is largely warming the backbenches.

As for depth and gravitas, he recently gave a revealing interview with CBC Radio host Evan Solomon on The House.

“I think voters are looking for real people, not spun, sound-bited and massively controlled politicians,” Trudeau said.

For example, when he once opined in a French-language interview that the country would be better off being run by Quebecers than by Albertans?

Oh, heavens, no! Trudeau says.

If you’re looking for real, unspun politicians: “What you need to look at is what someone is actually saying … throughout their speeches, throughout their presentations.”

Was it a mistake to make the comment in the first place? Solomon asks.

“Absolutely, because it allowed the Conservatives to … make campaigns out of negativity and the past when I want to talk positive about the future.”

Most of the major candidates running for the Liberal leadership are in some way trying to distance themselves from the party’s past.

But Trudeau seems to be trying to distance himself from himself, last week calling the long-gun registry a “failure” that he would not revive, even though he has voted more than a dozen times to save it.

About that coalition ...

If there is anything he has said on the record that may come back to bite Trudeau in the long run, it is his enthusiasm for the 2008 almost-coalition government.

It was the day the Liberals inked a deal with the NDP, backed by the unwritten support of the separatist Bloc Québécois, to topple the newly elected minority Conservative government and replace it with a coalition that would have made Stéphane Dion prime minister.

Trudeau rose in the Commons to make one of his first speeches ever in Parliament, calling the coalition deal a “large, important day of respect and co-operation of which we can all be proud. I would like to congratulate the members of the Bloc for being part of that.”

Trudeau’s embrace of the ultimately failed coalition is likely already sitting in a Conservative Party file of fodder for future attack ads, should he win the Liberal leadership.

In the CBC interview, Trudeau was asked if his pretty-boy image was his biggest challenge.

“No,” said Trudeau. “My biggest challenge is getting people to know everything that I am, and everything that I’m not.”

In politics, as in life, it’s best to be careful what you wish for.


M. Trudeau is not a stupid man ... anything but. But, he does not have the sort of experience that might lead someone like me to believe that he is, in any way, qualified to be Prime Minister. On the other hand prime Minister Harper's resumé was pretty thin when he took the reigns of the newly formed CPC in 2003 and most fair minded people would agree that he is not a bad prime minister ... he may not be a St Laurent or even a Borden but he's light years better than several.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top